Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Outline planning permission for the erection of up to 95 dwellings and up to 3ha of commercial space associated with the expansion of Highnam Business Centre as well as associated infrastructure with all matters reserved except for access.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Minded to Refuse.

49.2          This was an outline application for the erection of up to 95 dwellings and up to three hectares of commercial space associated with the expansion of Highnam Business Centre, as well as associated infrastructure, with all matters reserved except for access.

49.3          The Planning Officer advised that the application proposed 1.9 hectares of commercial uses as an extension of Highnam Business Park, associated soft landscaping and a Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme (SuDS).  Whilst the Tewkesbury Borough Plan allocated a 1.9 hectare extension of the Business Park, and the grey area outlined for development broadly equated with that, the view of Officers was that that part of the land for the 95 dwellings was outside of the settlement boundary of Highnam and therefore was in open countryside.  The application had been brought to Committee in June 2022 where Members had resolved that a split decision be issued with the commercial land permitted, subject to the relevant legal agreements, and the northern part for residential use be refused on the basis of the principle of development, the landscape impact, the lack of connectivity and the lack of a completed Section 106 Agreement.  Further to the Planning Committee resolution to issue a split decision, the applicant did not wish to progress with completing a legal agreement and had submitted a non-determination appeal for the entire site.  The Planning Inquiry was scheduled for April and the Local Planning Authority was required to prepare a Statement of Case setting out how the Committee would have determined the application as a whole if it had remained the determining authority.  As such, the application had been brought back to the Committee to set out the putative reasons for refusal which would form the basis of the Inquiry.  Members were requested to consider a recommendation of minded to refuse based on the putative reasons for refusal set out in the Committee report in relation to the principle of development; landscape impact focusing on the residential parcel; and the non-completion of planning obligations.  It was noted that connectivity had been part of the original refusal and Members had been made aware when it had been discussed at the previous Committee meeting that, whilst the access come out of the residential parcel of land, a footpath to the north of Newent Road provided access to Highnam and services to the south including a doctors’ surgery, nursery, shop etc.  It was noteworthy that a footpath within the existing residential development to the east was currently fenced off but it would be possible for future residents to access the new site subject to the removal of part of the fence so Members were asked to consider whether lack of integration should be part of the refusal with knowledge of that.

49.4          The Chair invited a local Ward Member to address the Committee.  The local Ward Member suggested that the grounds for putative refusal, as highlighted in his previous comments to the June 2022 Committee, as set out at Paragraph 7.21 of the Committee report, still stood.  He reiterated that the application established a separate new settlement rather than being an extension to Highnam village and the disconnect had been recognised by the Committee in its original decision.  He indicated that the site was not included within the Highnam Neighbourhood Development Plan and conflicted with Joint Core Strategy Policies SD10 and INF1 and, critically, the Tewkesbury Borough Plan.  At the time of the original application, he had asked the Committee to consider the potential conflict with the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and the borough’s housing land supply and that was particularly pertinent now, as set out in the Committee report, as having moved to the standard method, the Council could demonstrate a housing land supply of more than six years.  This was supported by putative reasons for refusal 1 and 2.  The local Ward Member reiterated the conflict with the Tewkesbury Borough Landscape and Visual Sensitivity Study for Rural Service Centres and Service Villages.  This application would lead to the loss of prime agricultural land and the applicant had advised that the proposal would result in the loss of 3.8 hectares of Grade 2 land and 3.8 hectares of Grade 3a Land.  Further grounds for refusal could be considered within Paragraph 174 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SD14 of the Joint Core Strategy.  He asked the Committee to review the issues around infrastructure in terms of schools, community provision and healthcare facilities as set out in reasons for refusal 4-8.  Although not referenced directly in the putative reasons for refusal, it would be remiss of him not to mention the potential impact of flooding and surface water run-off.  He also flagged up concerns around traffic in relation to visibility, volume and safety.

49.5          The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was minded to refuse and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be minded to refuse in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member indicated that the Committee had granted permission for the commercial land and he asked for clarification on the current status of that land.  The Planning Officer explained that, at this point, the application was undetermined so the commercial land did not have planning permission.  An appeal had been submitted for the whole site – residential and commercial – which was what the Planning Inspectorate would consider in the first instance.  Although the Planning Inspectorate had the right to issue a split decision, at the moment it needed to be considered as a whole and the expansion of Highnam Business Park currently had no planning permission.  A Member queried how robust a putative reason around lack of connectivity – which the majority of Members had been concerned about – would be, or if it would be thrown out during deliberations on the Statement of Common Ground.  The Planning Officer advised that the Statement of Common Ground set out the facts of the case for investigation.  There was potential for future connection from the existing site to the new development and quality of the footpath on the side of the road from the site across to Highnam could be improved via Section 278 works so the Statement of Common Ground would say that was the case.  A putative reason for refusal had been drafted on the basis that the site did not integrate into Higham, and Joint Core Strategy Policy SD4 talked about the importance of integration, so it would be stated that connectivity was a concern as, for a development of this scale, the fact there was only an access along Newent Road, and one potential access from Highnam, was not ideal.  A Member noted that the Gloucestershire Gardens and Landscape Trust had objected to the proposal and asked for clarification on the basis of its representation.  The Development Management Team Leader (East) advised that the Trust was not a statutory consultee; however, groups were able to comment on applications if they had not been consulted.

49.6          Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the Committee be MINDED TO REFUSE the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.